Why I Am Not King James Only

Original Languages
1. The Bible was written by apostles and prophets in Hebrew and Greek- not in 1611 by people speaking the King's English.
2. The original Greek and Hebrew versions are the standard against which all other copies and translations are to be analyzed (not the King James Version.)
3. As we do not have any of the original Greek or Hebrew manuscripts (hand written versions) of the Bible, we have to analyze the oldest Greek and Hebrew manuscripts available to see which ones probably read like the original. This process, called "textual criticism," methodically analyzes individual manuscripts to attempt to decipher which reading is most likely what the apostle or prophet wrote. Here are some of the criteria:
a. The earlier a manuscript was written the more likely it is to agree with the original as there are probably fewer copies between that manuscript and the original.
b. If many early manuscripts agree that reading is most likely correct.
c. If manuscripts written in several different geographic locations agree, that reading is most likely correct. (Greek manuscripts were primarily copied in 4 or 5 different areas- Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome, Byzantium, and perhaps Caesarea. As Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Caesarea were conquered by Islam, they ceased copying Greek texts. As Rome adopted Latin and the Catholic church standardized the Bible in Latin rather than Greek, they ceased copying Greek texts. Byzantium and the Eastern Orthodox church however kept Greek as their standard until the printing press, so there are many Byzantine Greek texts still in existence, far outnumbering the other texts.)
d. If the text varies, the scribes probably simplified a complex reading as opposed to making a simple text more complex- therefore the simpler reading is usually correct. This is just how humans tend to err.
e. If a variant reading is of a dramatically different style than the rest of the author's work, then it was probably added later on.
f. If a variant reading is not in any of the earliest manuscripts, it is probably not authentic.
4. Textual critics are 99.9% positive they have the entire original reading of the New Testament figured out. This text is the main reading of the United Bible Societies fourth Greek New Testament, or Nestle-Aland's 27th revised edition of the Greek New Testament. These both contain footnotes with alternative readings and charts of which early manuscripts support the variations allowing any Greek student to decide for themselves if their conclusions seem accurate.
5. This Greek text is the foundation for most of the modern English translations including the English Standard Version, New American Standard Version, and a similar text is the basis for the New International Version.
6. The King James Version is based on the Greek New Testament published by Erasmus called the Textus Receptus. While modern Greek scholars analyzed nearly 5,000 Greek texts from all five text types and from the second to the fourteenth centuries (along with early translations to other languages) Erasmus only had a handful of texts- all from the Byzantine text type, the oldest version being from the ninth century.
7. Some defenders of the King James Version realize this problem, and have attempted to form a Greek text that agrees with the KJV. Their method for forming this text is simply by counting. The reading that is found in the most manuscripts is considered correct. The problem with this is that over time many of the earliest manuscripts have gotten destroyed, so we only have a few hundred manuscripts from the first five centuries. However, there are several thousand manuscripts written after the ninth century- nearly all of them in the Byzantine text type, and these are generally similar to Erasmus' Greek text. This text is called the Majority Text, and serves as the basis for the New King James version.
Conclusion: based on the best evidence available, it seems that the critical text upon which the modern English versions are based is in every way superior to the text that serves as the basis for the KJV or NKJV.

English Language
The goal of translating the Bible from the original languages to vernacular is to put the Bible in the language of the people. While the KJV did a great job of putting the best texts available into the language of those living in seventeenth century England, it is no longer sufficient as clear communication to the contemporary English speaking world. Pay attention: many KJV using teachers and preachers will spend up to 25% of their time translating from middle English to modern English. In fact, that language bites of insincere piety in the ears of many people today, hence it is used in the phrase, "holier than thou."

Refuting Convincing Pro-KJV Arguments
1. "The new versions take things out." If your standard is the KJV, then yes, the new versions appear to take things out of the Bible that are in the KJV. However, if your standard is the original Greek Text, it appears the KJV is based on Greek texts that added things to the original writings. The new versions are not guilty of subtracting, the KJV is inadvertently guilty of adding to scripture.
2. "To maintain order in Church there should be a standard." Most churches do well with several different versions. The only churches where Bible version seems to be a big deal are KJV only churches. And if the KJV is to be the standard, which edition of the King James Version should we use? (see point 4) It may be helpful for a pastor to consistently use one translation from the pulpit, but that should be up to his discretion.
3. "Most Greek manuscripts support the KJV." Textual criticism should be based on reason, not democracy. I could write ten thousand copies of Jude that add a verse saying I am nine feet tall but that would not mean it is correct. Although the most Greek texts may agree with the KJV, the best, earliest, and broader scope of texts agree with the modern versions.
4. "The translators of the KJV were inspired." Inspiration would be evidenced by inerrancy. The first King James Version was published in 1611. The spelling, grammar, and translation errors were revised regularly (I think twelve times) between 1611 and 1789 when the KJV Bible we know today was published. Why all the revisions if the translators were inspired?

Refuting Silly Pro-KJV Arguments
1. "Today's perVersions are based on a critical text. Why would anybody want to criticize the word of God?" This argument reveals complete ignorance of what textual criticism is.
2. "Westcot and Hort are corrupt people who compiled a corrupt text that serves as the foundation for corrupt translations." Westcot and Hort were scholars who compiled a critical text. This is not the foundation for today's versions. I do not know much about their personal lives, but we all have our weaknesses and sinful problems- that's why we're Christians. This type of argument contains at least two logical fallacies: poisoning the well, and non-sequiter. Poisoning the well is attempting to invalidate everything a person says or does by attacking their character. David was an adulterer and murderer, Moses and Paul were murderers, apply the same logic to them. Non-sequitur is when a conclusion does not flow from its premises. To draw the conclusion that new versions are corrupt because those two gentlemen may have been corrupt does not follow logically.
3. "The trinity knot on the NKJV is actually the mark of the beast." Symbols are used to represent things. The trinity knot was intended to represent the trinity. Upside down trinity knots are not the same thing as trinity knots, just like upside down crosses are not vertical crosses.
4. "Hell is taken out of the new versions." The new versions are more accurate. The place of the dead, the place of torment, and the place of burning are based on three different Greek words. Therefore, to show a distinction in English we have the words "Hell", "Hades," and "Sheol." A good Bible dictionary will help give more insight into these distinctions. Hell is still there and more accurately than it was before.

Conclusion
Don't just take my word on this. Look into the issues for yourself. The incredible way that God has preserved his word throughout history is fascinating study. Despite all of the world's attempts to invalidate and eliminate the word of God, it continues to persevere. Its transforming power in the lives of those who read it is evidence of the Holy God who inspired it and works through it.

Whatever version or versions you use, read your Bible regularly, and ask God to work through it to conform you more to his image. Even if you are KJV only, a person reading an NIV is better off than you are if you are not reading your Bible. Please read your Bible, spend time with God and let him work in your life.